checking the premises: myths about Washington mathematics education

I'm not a math teacher. I'll just get that out there, so when the criticism comes, I can deflect it like a pinball bumper. I teach and coach debate. So although I'm not proficient in formulizing and calculition, I'm pretty darn good at seeing through faulty logic.

Virginia M. Warfield is a math teacher--a math professor, in fact. So when she tells us she's going to separate myths from truths in the debate over Washington's math instruction, we ought to pay attention.

Sadly, if we look closely, we'll see some questionable premises. Her words are in italics.

1. Perhaps the most damaging myth is that the state's K-12 mathematics is in disastrous condition. It is not. In the most commonly accepted set of objective data, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Washington is above the median in all categories and one of the top four or five in many.

That's great: but then, the NAEP is a relative comparison. In Washington, 25% of students tested at "below basic." In the leading state, North Dakota, only 19% fell under the bar--but that's one out of every five students. Now, I'm not saying Washington's math instruction is a disaster--I'm not qualified to judge--but this isn't good evidence to the contrary.

2. Another much-trumpeted myth is, "Our state standards are rated F." There is indeed one organization, the educationally conservative Fordham Foundation, which so rated us. It is not a correct assessment of our standards, but rather of the discrepancy between Washington's educational priorities and the Fordham Foundation's.

Warfield discounts the FF for its "conservative" stance, a sly ad hominem, and then goes on to claim that it just shows that they value different things when it comes to mathematics instruction. Fine: so, why are their values wrong or inferior to the state's? That discrepancy can't be wished away by pure assertion.

3. On another front, a lot of genuine confusion surrounds the WASL results. From the confusion, one notably false conclusion has emerged: Because attempts to use the 10th-grade WASL as a graduation requirement produced serious difficulties, the WASL must be a bad test. That is akin to throwing out a thermometer because it reports a fever. The 10th-grade WASL does not measure obscure knowledge. It measures knowledge that any resident of our state needs to have, and that the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction has set as the goal for all of our students.

I agree that you shouldn't throw out a thermometer just because it indicates a fever. But if your thermometer records unusually high temperatures on a consistent basis, it might be broken. Or, if you stick it under your tongue for five seconds, you might not get an accurate reading. See where this is going? The WASL isn't valid by default--and a weak analogy doesn't make it any more valid.

These disagreements aside, I find a few things worth attention: Warfield is right that our society wants a quick fix to a complex problem, and that the OSPI hasn't successfully convinced school districts--where change really counts--to adopt new strategies. (Even where they are trying, contention and chaos are common.)

Something is definitely wrong when half the students who take a test can't pass it. Is it the students? Their schools? Their parents? Their teachers? The test? Sounds like a hell of a WASL prompt.

support the rule of 85 and HB 1199

I started teaching when I was 23.

Under TRS plan 3, I can retire with a full pension when I'm 65. (Plan I retirees could jet at 55.)

That's all it takes: 42 years of dedication.

HB 1199 would change that.

(2) UNREDUCED RETIREMENT. Any member who is at least age fifty-five and has completed at least five service credit years and for whom the sum of the number of years of the member's age and the number of years of the member's service credit equals eighty-five or more shall be eligible to retire and receive a retirement allowance computed according to the provisions of RCW 41.40.790.

Hypothetical: at 55, I'll have been teaching for 32 years. 32+55 = 87 = able to retire on a full pension.

So, which Mr. Anderson do you want? Happy retiree, or burned out curmudgeon?

That's right. Support HB 1199.

HB 2079 needs fixing

If I had ten dollars, and you gave me ten dollars more, and then I spent ten dollars on beer and cigarettes, would you be responsible for my binge? No, I could argue: I spent "my" ten dollars, and kept "your" ten.

That's what's at issue in the WEA's auditing, at least according to the WEA's version of the agency shop fees case. Now, in order to clarify state law, WEA-friendly (make that WEA-supported) representatives and senators have introduced a bill to allow the sort of accounting described above. As HB 2079 would have it,

A labor organization does not use agency shop fees when it uses its general treasury funds to make such contributions or expenditures if it has sufficient revenues from sources other than agency shop fees in its general treasury to fund such contributions or expenditures.

Sound Politics' Stefan Sharkansky calls it an "end run" around Davenport vs. WEA.

I've spent a while trying to figure out the case, and though I agree with the bill's purpose, its "emergency clause" strikes me as procedurally savvy, but unnecessarily divisive. It only pours kerosene on the EFF's fire, and makes the WEA look desperate in the face of a potential SCOTUS smackdown. Nix those lines, and send it to the House (and its sister to the Senate) for debate.

lost WASL = waiver for students

The company that ships the WASLs for scoring lost their tests, but the students won't have to retake 'em (again), thanks to a recent decision by Terry Bergeson.

In a letter Monday to the Ki-Be students, Bergeson explained the juniors still are responsible for passing sections of the exam that weren't lost.

And if they want to earn a state Certificate of Academic Achievement that shows the students have met academic standards, they will have to pass the three required sections or a state-approved alternative, she said.

State officials looked at the students' transcripts and other records but had a hard time determining from them whether each had the skills to earn the certificate, Bergeson wrote.

"I strongly recommend that you retake the test or use one of the alternatives. It is important to know that you have these essential skills," she wrote.

The tests would have been scored in Iowa. Just another outsourcing anecdote to add to the pile.

HB 1307 all about power-hungry journalism teachers, columnist claims

In an op-ed for the Times, Bruce Ramsey dials in a lot of the same issues we've already discussed here. However, he adds another wrinkle to the debate:

HB 1307 would give students the entire power at public colleges and most of the power in public high schools — which is where the controversy is. It would allow the high-school principal to read the paper before going to press and to make changes to avoid libel, invasion of privacy or incitement to disruption. If he changed anything, he and the school district could face a lawsuit for going beyond these exceptions. If he changed nothing, all the liability would be held by the student editor (and perhaps his parents).

The students who spoke for the bill said they were willing to take the responsibility. But when a teenager says, "I'll take the responsibility," what does it mean? Maybe not a lot.

Most interesting was the attitude of the teachers. They all supported the bill. Though it would leave a teacher with no more legal power than the principal, legal power is not the only kind of power there is. The teacher is with the students. Often the conflicts over what can be printed are between the teacher and the principal.

Really, this is a bill to enhance the power of journalism teachers. It allows the students to pretend they are adult journeymen, which they are not, and allows the teachers to get the principals off their backs. It has little to do with the world those students will inhabit if they go to work for a real newspaper.

HB 1307: one step forward

In the mad rush of events, I had almost forgotten about Brian Schraum's notes defending HB 1307, the bill that would make student journalists entirely responsible for their own content. Here are my thoughts in response, after reflection. I had originally argued that the First Amendment (at least, in my non-legal-scholarly estimation) doesn't protect your right to publish in someone else's medium.

After studying the issue in more depth, I've come to agree much more with Schraum's position than I initially had--that it is possible for students to "own" their work in a newspaper. I've looked over some of the cases where students have successfully received injunctive relief from "arbitrary and capricious" prohibitions or viewpoint discrimination. (The former language was used to allow a student to publish a yearbook photo of himself in chain mail. Nerd.) I hadn't really looked into the SPLC, and now I'm much more impressed with the constitutional protections of student speech.

However, I see Hazelwood as a reasonable position that has been unreasonably interpreted by overzealous--make that paranoid--administrators. The SPLC reports that calls to their hotlines have increased mightily in the years since Hazelwood, yet under that ruling, all a savvy newspaper teacher has to do is include express language in the publication to the effect that the newspaper is indeed a forum for the school, and not just an assignment or a function of a particular class. ("Underground," student-produced newspapers are fully protected, as are other routes of student expression.)

Schraum writes,

[In Hazelwood the] Court justified control of student newspapers simply because the public might falsely think the expression reflected that of the school. This is simply not the case; I don't think any reasonable person would look at a student newspaper and think that a principal was responsible for everything in it.

Maybe Schraum has never had to take angry parent phone calls--or maybe he automatically discounts such calls as "unreasonable"--but since administrators constantly have to justify school actions to the community, I'd like to see evidence that "reasonable people" don't (or shouldn't) confuse what's in the school newspaper with what the school condones or takes responsibility for--especially when the school is paying for it.

Schraum, though, also oversimplifies SCOTUS's claims in Hazelwood regarding the defining First Amendment case, Tinker vs. Des Moines.

We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986), and must be "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." Tinker, supra, at 506; cf. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 341-343 (1985). A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its "basic educational mission," Fraser, supra, at 685, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Accordingly, we held in Fraser that a student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech that was "sexually explicit" but not legally obscene at an official school assembly, because the school was entitled to "disassociate itself" from the speech in a manner [484 U.S. 260, 267] that would demonstrate to others that such vulgarity is "wholly inconsistent with the 'fundamental values' of public school education." 478 U.S., at 685-686. We thus recognized that "[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board," id., at 683, rather than with the federal courts

HB 1307 still allows administrators to intervene, as long as they have evidence of the potential for material disruption.

It all comes down to the ownership question. Journalism teachers and students who value free expression--and there aren't enough of either--should take the steps to declare their paper a public forum, ensuring full constitutional protection for writers. If these steps are taken, HB 1307 could be entirely superfluous.

Two uncertainties remain. If HB 1307 passes, will paranoid administrators eliminate journalism classes, using excuses like "we don't have the money" or "we need more classes for WASL prep?" Second, will students face an even greater "chilling effect" once they realize they are personally liable for their content?

NEA Today notices

On page 33, "The Many Moods of Teacher Blogs." Thanks, NEA, for catching up to us.

I'd call this here blog "dyspeptic," or maybe "curmudgeonly." But certainly not "disheartened" or "paranoid."

Brian Schraum defends HB 1307

Brian Schraum has sent word that, along partisan lines, the House Judiciary Committee has approved House Bill 1307, which would give student journalists full responsibility for their publications. In a separate email, Schraum responds to my thoughts, writing,

You are not alone in making the argument that the school is the publisher/owner of the newspaper, and for that reason should be able to determine the content. The analogy you make, about me demanding to publish something in The Olympian, simply does not hold up. Even the federal courts, which have caused so much damage to the rights of students, recognized this: "The university is clearly an arm of the state and this single fact will always distinguish it from the purely private publisher as far as censorship rights are concerned" (Bazaar v. Fortune). The same holds true for any public school.

Things which are produced at school do not automatically become property of school officials. If that were the case, teachers and professors could claim credit for all student work -- slap their name on it and face no penalty. I don't think that's a just outcome. The same holds true for student newspapers; the work is that of students, regardless of the medium that might be used.

The Supreme Court's Hazelwood decision, which we are seeking to curb with this bill, had not so much to do with that as it did with "perception," in my opinion. The Court justified control of student newspapers simply because the public might falsely think the expression reflected that of the school. This is simply not the case; I don't think any reasonable person would look at a student newspaper and think that a principal was responsible for everything in it.

Boil this down to its core components: you have the government (school officials), and journalists (student reporters). I just don't happen to think government control of journalism does anyone any good.

The core of our disagreement seems to be about who "owns" the newspaper. I strongly disagree with the idea that the school "owns" the newspaper... the closest you might be able to come up with is that "the people" own it. Even if that were the case, we have regulations on how government conducts the peoples' business. Censorship rules are among those. We are attempting to strike a much more reasonable balance with this legislation.

I fully agree with you that no school should be required to support a student newspaper. In fact, many student publications are produced outside of class time, largely or entirely with advertising dollars that students themselves collect. The school is free to decide if it wants to provide financial aid to the publication, or offer credit for working on it... but doing so gives them no more right to censor it than I would have to censor The Olympian by paying for a subscription.

I'll have a response to post shortly. I thank Mr. Schraum for his permission to publish his thoughts.

our WASL: no longer here to stay?

More interesting than the cursory Olympian article-teaser on a legislative committee's flirtation with dumping the WASL are the comments from area readers.

Anonymous starts the thread:

My son spent time in his freshman and sophomore year at school in a mandatory WASL prep class because his grades were low. Unlike most of his class, he passed all parts of the WASL so he can graduate next year. Unfortunately due to his having to take a WASL prep class all year he is behind in other mandatory credits like P.E. which may cause him not to be able to graduate on time.

Old Faithful fires back:

Anon - You think your son WASTED his time learning enough math to pass the WASL?

I think math, science and language arts should be mandatory - with PE and fine arts for those who can afford school time to do so.

To which Anonymous responds:

You think studying to pass one test is preparing someone for life? As far as I can tell the only thing you get when a kid passes the WASL is a kid who can pass the WASL.

How can someone like me, a product of the 60's and 70's school system have a college degree and a successful career without ever having taken the WASL? Oh the horror! Math and reading were taught just fine thirty or forty years ago ( and we had more than enough time for p.e. and some good old fashion dodge ball games which I am sure are politically incorrect to play now). If the WASL is so damned important why such a controversy about whether to require it or not?

For closing thoughts, though, we turn back to the original comment by Anonymous.

I think what we need to do is throw out the entire education system in Washington, starting with SPI and start from scratch. How people with masters and doctorate degrees can be such a bunch of boneheads is beyond me.

Trust me, my friend: a stamped piece of paper is no guarantee of anything except a fatter paycheck. Usually.

right for the wrong reasons: giving student journalists greater autonomy

In The Olympian this morning, a report on the student journalists who descended on the Capitol, full of righteous rhetoric:

"The question is simple: 'Are we people?' The Constitution provides that people have fundamental rights of speech," testified Brian Schraum, a Green River Community College graduate now attending Washington State University.

He brought the issue to lawmakers after a federal court ruling in the Midwest said universities could review articles before publication.

"Look into the eyes of students in the audience. We are people," Schraum challenged the lawmakers.

Strong words, but weak logic. It might interest Mr. Schraum to know that he has no First Amendment right to publish in The Olympian, on a bathroom stall at Applebee's, on this blog, or wherever someone else owns the medium. Schools are not even obligated to have student newspapers, never mind fund them or make them part of the course offerings.

Would Schraum support legislation to let a professional journalist sue The Olympian for refusing to run an article, whatever the editor's excuse? I hope not. Yet, analogously, that's what this legislation demands: "injunctive and declaratory relief" whenever a paranoid administrator reaches for the Wite-Out.

Let's examine some of the arguments offered in Schraum's defense by a fellow student journalist (and former student of mine).

Just as local newspapers offer residents a place to voice and vent their concerns and critiques, so too does a student-run newspaper give students a place to voice their opinions.

However, residents can't sue when their letter to the editor isn't published--and, as I mentioned before, neither can reporters when their bosses trash a story that might offend a prominent advertiser. Weasely, sure, but not a rights violation.

When student newspapers are censored, students no longer have a place for their concerns to be heard.

This is simply false. The school newspaper is hardly students' only medium for a message. (This also means that administrators have no business attempting to interfere in student expression outside the classroom.)

Student newspapers, though instituted through the school, are actually run by students. It's not a forum for the school as a whole, but specifically for the students, the primary readership. Thus they, not administration, should be in control of the content.

Maybe in the Workers World the paper runs that way, but every other paper in existence has a chain of command.

Just as a local newspaper can choose what it prints, a student newspaper should be given the same right.

A local paper can choose what it prints--but not really. Editors, reporters, readers, community standards, journalistic ethics, and almighty advertisers all shape content--and, as I've stated before, the owner has the final say.

One thing Schraum, Watts, and everyone else should agree upon: in Watts' words, "Too little faith is put in students' ability to determine appropriateness and to handle controversial topics." I want student journalists to be given greater responsibility to challenge and provoke their peers in the service of learning. My desire, though, arises from practical, not sacred, obligations. It's because I want smarter, savvier journalists, not because of a righteous misreading of the First Amendment.

There are other ways to get administrators to cave, each a potential civics lesson. Protests. (Professional) media coverage. Angry parent phone calls. Reasoned, impassioned argument. And, dare I say it, blogging. Ill-founded, won't-survive-the-appeals-court lawsuits aren't the answer.



(Bill text here [pdf]. Bill history here.)

communism in the marketplace of ideas

As Federal Way puts a wrap on its controversy over controversy, Mr. Rain notes that the virus has spread eastward to Yakima.

Roll that around your head for a minute. The environmental club might be told that, to show An Inconvenient Truth, they also need to present materials opposed to the movie. The Environmental Club could be put in a position where they have to present the case of the polluters.

While I'm having fun with logical fallacies, let's hop on a slippery slope! Should the Religion Club have to show Saved! right along side The Passion of the Christ? The Young Republicans forced into Fahrenheit 9/11 before they can watch tonight's O'Reilly Factor? Can a school work too hard to achieve a neutral mien, and in the process become irrelevant?

Our school just witnessed a presentation by Craig Scott of Rachel's Challenge. Oddly, no one was there for the rebuttal. Maybe "prejudice is a useful form of intuition" deserves a wider hearing, along with "journaling is for sissies" and "mean people don't suck."

free speech rights for students: a student's perspective

Guest-blogger and former CHS student journalist (and present WSU staffer) Christina Watts responds to my thoughts on the proposed legislation that would protect free speech rights for high school journalists. She writes,

I work with Brian Schraum, the WSU student who approached Upthegrove about a need for the bill. I'm glad the legislature is finally looking at the issue of student journalists and their rights.

Just as local newspapers offer residents a place to voice and vent their concerns and critiques, so too does a student-run newspaper give students a place to voice their opinions. This is why the bill being introduced by Upthegrove is important.

Not only do students deserve and need a forum to share their voice about school issues, but they need to know that in sharing their ideas, they won't be penalized. Working on the Outlook, even without being under principal review at the time, we ran into several instances where word of our content was released and we were told to remove it. Too little faith is put in students' ability to determine appropriateness and to handle controversial topics. When student newspapers are censored, students no longer have a place for their concerns to be heard.

It is true that many student newspapers are run through public schools and should therefore contribute to the educational process. This doesn't mean, however, that censoring student newspapers, a practice which has been done across the state as well as across the country, is the best course of action to take. In the past, schools have censored articles about birth control, homosexuality, and drug use, all issues students become familiar with merely by going school. To say these issues weren't relevant or important to students at school was ignorant, and yet the articles were still censored.

Student newspapers, though instituted through the school, are actually run by students. It's not a forum for the school as a whole, but specifically for the students, the primary readership. Thus they, not administration, should be in control of the content.

This bill, which would protect students' rights as journalists, would also at the same time make them accountable and responsible as journalists. Just as a local newspaper can choose what it prints, a student newspaper should be given the same right.

freedom of speech for student journalists

Your local newspaper has no obligation to give you a bully pulpit, and they don't even have to publish your anti-corporate screed in the letters to the editor. You don't have the right because you don't own it.

Local papers know, though, that allowing a diverse array of viewpoints, by stoking controversy, we can smack some sense into Our Great Republic (or, at very least, the city council). The First Amendment protects that function.

It does not, however, give you a right to publish in someone else's forum.

For that reason, this proposed legislation can't match intentions and outcomes.

Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines, has introduced legislation that would allow advisers to review student publications but strip them of any authority to control what is printed. Instead, students would be in charge of writing, editing and publishing — and would be liable for any fallout....

By granting students added freedoms and accountability, Upthegrove hopes to generate an appreciation for constitutional rights and give young people a sense of civic responsibility.

The Supreme Court has already been there, Upthegrove. A school newspaper isn't a public forum. It's taxpayer-funded and beholden to the greater needs of the "educational process." Thou shalt not disrupt it.

However, the disingenuous stance of the Washington Association of School Administrators bothers me, too:

If students want to voice their opinions without restraints, he suggests they turn elsewhere. Between blogs and personal Web sites, Kipp said, "There are lots of opportunities that kids have in school to express whatever they want."

Except that administrators block access to both blogs and personal websites, and have even gone after students for publishing anti-school materials at home.

It's a delicate balance, and administrators usually lean too far on the side of tyranny, afraid that controversy is in itself disruptive. A wise administrator knows when to let students take the fall.

On balance, I'd probably support the bill, even though I'm not sure how well making students liable will work when the first lawsuit rolls in. Accountability, after all, is another word for litigation.

are you ready for the revolution? Google is the new Alexandria

They want to digitize everything, and they're doing it. Books by the thousand, for a new archive of information rivaling that wonder of the ancient world. Bryan Appleyard reports.

The first thing to be said is that Google Book Search, though still in its “beta” or unfinalised form, is an astonishing mechanism. Putting my own name in came up with 626 references and gave me immediate access to passages containing my name in books, most of which were quite unknown to me. Moreover, clicking on one of these references brings up an image of the actual page in question.

But the second thing to be said is that I could read whole passages of my books of which I own the copyright. At once a huge intellectual property issue looms. The Americans are ploughing ahead with this, scanning in material both in and out of copyright. The British — at Oxford’s Bodleian Library and the British Library — are being more cautious, allowing only the scanning of out-of-copyright books. This may, of course, mean nothing, since the big American libraries will, like the Bodleian and the British Library, contain every book published in English, so they will all ultimately be out there on the net.

American publishers are not happy. Before its 2004 announcement, Google had been doing deals with individual publishers to scan their books. But digitising the libraries would seem to render these deals defunct. Furthermore, since Google is acquiring copyright material at no cost, it seems to be treating books quite differently from all other media. It is prepared to pay for video and music, but not, apparently, for books. The Google defence is that their Book Search system is covered by the legal concept of “fair dealing”. No more than 20% of a copyright book will be available, the search is designed to show just relevant passages, and it will provide links to sites where the book can be bought.

Unimpressed, the Authors Guild, supported by the Association of American Publishers, has started a class action suit against Google. A deal may yet be done, but neither side sounds in a compromising mood, and it looks likely that this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, whose ruling on this case may prove momentous.

Largely I try to maintain objectivity when discussing the technological implications, but in this case: go Google. It's an incredible research opportunity. Amazon.com's similar "Search Inside the Book" feature proves it can work, and by limiting access, proves it won't destroy copyright.

are you ready for the revolution? a contract database

Most of my technological revolution-blogging has concerned the increasingly mechanized classroom. But what about unions? We're not all fuddy-duddies. Some of us even blog. And now we can see the intimate details of bargaining agreements from around the country.

Welcome to the National Council on Teacher Quality's groundbreaking online research portal. You can explore the intricacies of collective bargaining agreements, board policies, and teacher handbooks from the nation's 50 largest school districts, educating 16 percent (over 8 million) of all school children, employing nearly 500,000 teachers and operating 11,000 schools. And that's just the beginning.

Districts, watch out: better ideas are out there, lurking in cyberspace, and now we have an easy way to find them.

Hat tip: the ever-useful Dr. Homeslice.

what a difference eight days make

We swear we're not teaching to the test. Oh, do we swear it: and yet do our actions give the lie to our oaths.

The WASL is intended to track a student's learning, to assess her skills at a fixed point in time. The 10th grade high-stakes pass-it-or-do-not-pass-go WASL should represent the culmination of eleven years of education.

We take whole summers off. Thanksgiving, winter break, Dr. King's Day, and a raft of other holidays. What's at stake if we miss a few days?

Apparently, everything to area districts.

Many districts are considering shortening midwinter or spring break as an option to extending the school year. Seattle Public Schools hopes to announce its decision next week, said district spokeswoman Patti Spencer.

Bellevue school officials will meet Tuesday to discuss their options for making up eight days, including scaling back midwinter or spring break. The Federal Way School District, which also has canceled eight days of school this year, is discussing similar options.

"The concern is this is really disruptive to the educational process, especially with the WASL coming up in March, said district spokeswoman Debra Stenberg. "One of the considerations may be to try to replace some of that instructional time prior to the beginning of the WASL."

Highline School District, which anticipates announcing its new school calendar in the next few weeks, is looking into alternatives to prolonging the school year, said district spokeswoman Catherine Carbone Rogers. Adding days at the end of the year doesn't help students prepare for the WASL, she said.

We do teach to the test. We furiously prepare for the WASL in the weeks running up, and every second of seat time counts. Actions don't just speak louder than words. They shout them down.

SCOTUS hears the Davenport case

The Olympian notes that the WEA agency shop fees case has been argued before the Supreme Court. You can read the transcript here [pdf]. Highlights:

[PAUL D.] CLEMENT [for the state of Washington]: And I think it's instructive if you look in the joint appendix, I think it's at page joint appendix 45, you have the form that's available to union members to opt in to PAC contributions, and have payroll deductions made for the PAC contributions. The union certainly makes it much easier to opt in to PAC contributions than it makes it to opt out vis a vis the Hudson packet....

I could suggest where maybe the Washington Supreme Court went awry in its analysis, it focused almost exclusively on the three stated purposes that were included in the text of Initiative 134, which were all focused more on electoral integrity.

That's not surprising, because there were 36 sections in Initiative 134 that dealt with the whole manner of different campaign finance initiatives. Before this initiative was passed by the voters of Washington there weren't any campaign contribution limits in the State of Washington.

So this initiative is doing a lot more work, just besides Section 760. I think 760 isn't unrelated to those broader purposes because it does make sure that the contributions of the workers here are voluntary, and I think that is certainly something that's very similar to what Federal law accomplishes through the separate segregated fund requirements....


MR. WEST [for the WEA]: Thank you, Mr. Chief -- Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

Our submission that Section 760 unconstitutionally burdens the union's First Amendment right to engage in political advocacy rests on three points. One, the statute before the Court is a campaign finance law that was enacted for the purpose of protecting the public's interest in the integrity of the electoral process. Two, it is a content-based restriction on speech, which cannot be justified by the State's authority to limit agency fees in the first place. Three, the statute does not serve a compelling State interest both because it is overbroad in restricting, restricting speech on ballot propositions and because it's underinclusive in regulating the campaign speech of unions but not of other comparably situated entities....



MR. MCKENNA [for the state of Washington]: Yes. Your Honor, the Chief Justice is correct, of course. What I thought the question was about was the question of whether or not all, all non-germane expenses must be opt-in, must be provided. That's all I meant. You're absolutely correct. Of course, in your decisions opt-out is satisfactory, and we're not saying that opt-out is not satisfactory here as far as the State's position is concerned. But what we are saying is that the State has the right to impose this additional requirement of affirmative authorization....


MR. MCKENNA: We don't believe it is content-based, Your Honor. As I said, we don't believe it is, because it's any election of any kind.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Well, the content means a category of speech as opposed to what is the political position you're taking.
MR. MCKENNA: Yes, that is it's only in regard to influencing elections or operating a political committee, which is a second.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: But I thought that that was content. You could do it, say, in the press, but you couldn't do it over the air.
JUSTICE SCALIA: That's my understanding, too. I think you got to get out of it some other way. I mean, you've got to say it's content but it doesn't apply when it's the government contributing money or it doesn't apply when you're applying it to money that's being coerced by the government.
MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE BREYER: If that's yes, then the category here is election speech. If you're going to call a statute that treats election speech especially, then all of campaign finance regulation would fall in that category. And if you're going to use that distinction to say strict scrutiny applies, then strict scrutiny would apply to all campaign finance regulation. And courts never to my knowledge apply strict scrutiny to campaign finance regulation because there are speech interests on both sides of the equation.
MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Your Honor. Of course, we believe that -
JUSTICE BREYER: I'm glad you said yes to me because that implies a no to the last question.
(Laughter.)

I agree with the AP assessment that the Court sounds favorable to the state's position, but only on the issue of whether the WEA could make the Hudson process easier, and that the law might not be too burdensome. Nevertheless, they could rule that Washington's campaign finance law, if allowed to stand, as the WEA argues, represents an unfair form of discrimination against nonmembers who support the WEA's political efforts, and that "affirmative authorization" is satisfied by the Hudson opt-out process. (At one point, Justice Alito says "opt-in" before catching himself--the issue is linguistically confusing to everyone who confronts it.)

John West, advocating for the WEA, comes off as a bit flustered in some of his arguments.

I'll write more after I have time to fully digest the (68-page) hearing.

Update: Dahlia Lithwick's summary is well worth your time, if you want the quick rundown.

Update update: Although I will say I'm not terribly fond of the analogy to date rape.

are you ready for the revolution? tracking engagement with technology

I'd argue the primary concern most teachers have with technology-based learning is the removal of the human element. It's not that we fear losing our jobs--robots aren't that smart yet--but that learning isn't just about memorizing facts. You have to have an emotional investment in the content and the process. As it stands, a computer can't tell if a user is bored, and can't adapt to make her unbored.

That may soon change. Researchers are developing technology to monitor student engagement, and reflexively adjust programs to spark interest when a student gets frustrated or unattached.

The system keeps track of students' attention by measuring physical signs of emotion. It then varies the speed and content of a lesson based on an assessment of their level of interest. Ultimately, it could improve electronic tutoring programmes, say the researchers involved, thus helping developing countries deliver education to remote areas that lack educational institutions....

To use the new learning software, a student wears a ring fitted with sensors that monitor heart rate, blood pressure and changes in electrical resistance caused by perspiration. This data is then transmitted via Bluetooth to a computer that assesses the wearer's emotional state. It judges whether they are interested and keeping up or bored and struggling.

"We've built a prototype that can moderate the flow of educational information as a result," Callaghan told New Scientist. For example, it can slow down or change topic if a student seems disinterested, or appears to be falling behind. The software might also try a different mode of delivery, switching from text to video, for example.

The system is being tested in China and Great Britain, and is perhaps only a couple years from wider integration into the e-classroom.

I, for one, welcome our new robot pedagogues.

Gary Davenport, living proof that WEA efforts aren't in vain

The Olympian reminds us that the anti-WEA lawsuit over agency shop fees heads to the Supreme Court for oral argument this week. Profiling Gary Davenport--who comes off as a nice, thoughtful guy, if a bit strained, calling the union "bullies"--the article notes something just a little ironic:

The former high school social studies teacher said he left teaching because his growing family needed more money than he earned as a teacher.

I seem to recall a particular union spending nearly all its political capital to change that.

in the morning paper

Two Olympia School District board members hosted a seminar about the funding lawsuit here in WA. (No mention in the article that the OSD voted not to join the lawsuit--and that Lehman, one of the two, first floated the idea, only to have it shot down.)

Meanwhile, a new revelation in the Foss shooting: the suspect may have had a history of bringing guns to school, but district officials claim they never heard about it. If true, it would go down as an utterly tragic miscommunication between the court system and the school.

Google's strengths... and weaknesses

I wrote a little while ago about Google's form of reaching out to teachers, hoping to rope them in to using Google software. And why not? It's easy, and it's free.

Slate's Paul Boutin points out four Google programs you might not know about--but should.

doubt not the WASL

Dare ye?

After finding scoring errors in my children's tests last fall, I was assured by officials at OSPI the tests would be rescored. Instead, OSPI recently "changed procedures," now refusing to allow rescoring or appeals for WASL scores in grades three through eight. Accurate or not, WASL test scores become part of every child's permanent education records and are being used to make important decisions about student's placement and the type of instruction they receive.

The subjective nature of WASL's short-answer and extended-response questions brings its results into question. Scoring accuracy becomes a larger issue, considering the track record of Pearson, the company contracted to score WASL.

Recently, Pearson inaccurately scored nearly 4,000 SAT exams and 8,000 Minnesota Standards tests (preventing many students from graduating). With WASL's questionable reliability and validity, it's not surprising that WASL results often contradict other assessments.

I'm with the writer of this op-ed until the last paragraph:

Washington state must replace WASL with a timely, reliable assessment. Those who instruct our children must be allowed to focus on teaching and learning -- not assessment.

Good assessment is at the core of good teaching. If you don't know how to assess what your students are learning, you aren't a teacher--you're an Animatronic Lincoln.

good news and bad

Good news: I'm finally over on the new Blogger. Expect categorization, improved referencing of past entries, and a whole new attitude. Guaranteed 24% more spunk.

Bad news: the WASL, as expected, is cutting into electives. Right as we're supposed to be experiencing a renaissance in vocational education--and no, that doesn't mean Shakespeare in shop class, although that might be a good thing--a villain of Shakespearean proportions, the WASL, crashes onto the scene. It's not stealing funding, but instead filling schedules, so the problem might be surmountable if schools get creative with their time allotments.

speaking of things that don't add up

Elizabeth Hovde's well-meaning editorial in The Columbian showcases some of the misunderstandings that plague efforts to improve education. A few clarifications and corrections are in order. First, though, the good part:

Entry pay for teachers is fine. Their pay beats a lot of industries' entry-level wages. But the pay scale tops out way too early and not high enough. Experienced, effective teachers should be rewarded.

Amen to that. Teachers' highest salary possibilities should equal administrators' entry points, at least.

Teachers must pay hundreds of dollars to the union each year. Mandatory union dues or fees should be banned.

Remember those teacher salaries? They're bargained for by the union. Non-union teachers could be paid less, if such a thing were possible for districts.

There are good and bad teachers, just as there are good and bad lawyers, retail clerks and accountants. The process for granting a raise should more closely resemble the process found in the private sector.

Administrators and peers would evaluate teachers based on their abilities and be paid accordingly. Right now, there is no incentive to be innovative or even qualified in one's teaching job.

First, I agree that automatic pay raises and no incentive for improvement are a dangerous mix. But in the absence of objective criteria, "performance" becomes an excuse for kiss-assery. (Later on, Hovde warns against linking salaries to test scores or grades, for good reason--but suggests no alternative measurement.)

Also, Hovde is wrong in claiming there is no incentive for qualification. Teacher pay is tied to coursework in several ways: "staff development" pay, different pay scales for teachers with advanced degrees, and bonuses for National Board Certification. I'm seeking the latter next year, because I want to improve my skills--and the annual bonus helps defray the cost of the assessment.

There isn't an easy way to reform the educational pay structure in a way that promotes excellence, instead of rewarding mediocrity. My plan: boost salaries significantly, attracting a larger pool of candidates. Simultaneously, require certification as rigorous as the National Board program, winnowing out the chaff. If you want quality, you have to pay for it.

highly qualified

It's an aha moment for a teacher...

...our practice insures that they get hardly any practice at all, and no help from us, in mastering it.... [Y]ou’d think we’d look to maximize the number of opportunities we give our students to confront the task. Instead, we avoid them like the plague.

...at a law school.

techno-wizardry for the coming year

Maybe it's not entirely relevant to education, but Popular Mechanics' list of ten to-watch technologies is still fascinating. ("Video on the Net" and "Data Clouds" have the most potential to directly affect education; see here.)

[Link via Instapundit.]

parlez vous dérivé?

The Times, always willing to spend other people's money, supports Gregoire's math initiative.

A critical voice on this must be that of Terry Bergeson, the superintendent of public instruction. It is to Bergeson we must all look for leadership as 296 school districts begin aligning their math curricula and installing teachers qualified to teach math. Schools will have to increase their math classes to accommodate students who will have to skip electives and tackle more math.

Gregoire has outlined the road map. Bergeson can lead the way [emphasis added].

Meanwhile the grandest of all unintended consequences, the Frenchification of American education, continues apace.

with the proper motivation

Gregoire, flush with a 1.9 billion surplus, proposes dumping $197 million on extra math and science funding. The plan:

• Reduce class size. The state already is working to reduce elementary school class size via a citizen-approved initiative. Gregoire's new plan would send districts money to hire more middle and high school math and science teachers, with the goal of having one teacher per 25 students. Cost: $90 million.

• Recruit 750 more math and science teachers, including faculty who are teaching other subjects and didn't major in math and science in college. Additional college and teacher training would be available.

• Offer math and science scholarships to college students who agree to teach in those areas. Cost is $14 million.

• Pay annual bonuses of $5,000 to nationally certified teachers who teach in a "challenging" school and another $5,000 if they teach math or science. Currently, 900 teachers have this extra certification.

• Expand the alternative path to certification for non-teachers in the private sector who are experts in math and science, or paraprofessionals.

The professional development proposals total $62 million.

• Provide hands-on science learning for 1,000 K-8 classrooms, using the Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) program. Cost is $12 million.

• Provide extra help to students who are struggling with the WASLs. Gregoire proposes $12 million.

• Standardize math curricula across the state.

I have a better solution. We teachers are always grousing about parental involvement, and wondering why folks can't be more accountable. Want to see test scores go up? Promise parents a $1000 tax break when their lovable lump passes the WASL, at an overall cost of $82 million per annum. In two years, math scores will rise like rent on Boardwalk.


[cross-posted here]

time after time

Why I haven't blogged recently: I've been...

1. Donating all my spare time to the speech and debate squad (two weekends, two tournaments).

2. Waiting for the switch over to Blogger Beta.

3. Grading finals, working on Sundays and in the evenings to read essays, grade vocab quizzes, assess speeches, check book reports, and catch plagiarizers--make that one plagiarizer, who thought I wouldn't check extra credit. Note to administration: if you want us to have a "meaningful" final exam--and I'm in full agreement there, irked by reports from my freshmen that "other classes don't have to take a final, they're watching a movie, and by the fact that I have to explain why we're still taking a final--if you want us to give a "meaningful" assessment, please give us the time requisite to assessing it. Thank you.

4. Becoming a media darling (see #1).

5. Still waiting (see #2).

are you ready for the revolution? Google evangelizes in the classroom

As I noted before,

Simply put, the Google PC is any PC that will soon be able to access the massive computing power of Google's servers, running network-based software at speeds far greater than allowed by puny Pentiums....

At Capital, we use a scaled-down version of this setup. Our computer labs are full of dummy terminals, screens with keyboards and mice that run software from the network server. They have no hard drives, so they're cheap and relatively fast. The Google PC goes a step beyond, so schools wouldn't even have to host software on their own networks.

We've taken the initiative, since our tech guys are fond of low-cost software. Elsewhere, though, Google is bringing its technology directly to teachers.

In October, the company posted an online guide to provide instructors with ideas on how to incorporate the applications into their curricula. In November, Google invited about 50 Northern California teachers to spend the day at its Mountain View headquarters to learn more about the advantages of the program.

Google plans to host similar programs in other parts of the country as it tries to recruit more teachers to proselytize its online software.

Some students are already learning about the advantages of Google's word processing program, which enables people in different locations to collaborate simultaneously or view and edit documents at different times.

Palo Alto High School junior Danielle Kim said that flexibility was particularly helpful when her debate team jointly worked on a presentation earlier this year. But she also saw a downside to Google's approach. "It requires you to have Internet access," she said. "What happens when you are in a place that doesn't?"

Google expects that issue to become less of a problem as high-speed Internet connections become as commonplace as electrical outlets. Wireless access would enable information to be delivered to cellphones and other mobile devices as well as PCs and cable boxes.

The gap still exists, but it's rapidly shrinking as governments and foundations broaden access to wireless internet, or the more traditional tubes. Where's your school on the road to techno-topia?

Part I, online academies
Part II, the Google PC
Part III, homeschooling
Part IV, rapid growth
Part V, Olympia goes virtual
Part VI, Microsoft's "School of the Future"
Part VII, multi-touch interface technology